John H. Niemelä
Message of Life Ministries
Aurora, Colorado
I. INTRODUCTION
Is faith the gift of God? John MacArthur gives a standard Reformed statement that it is:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (2:8–9). Our response in salvation is faith, but even that is not of ourselves [but is] the gift of God. Faith is nothing that we do in our own power or by our own resources. In the first place we do not have adequate power or resources. More than that, God would not want us to rely on them even if we had them. Otherwise salvation would be in part by our own works, and we would have some ground to boast in ourselves. Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God’s giving it.1
MacArthur then takes the direct route to faith as God’s gift when he claims that God gives unbelievers that faith. God does so in order that they can believe. That is, faith is the entirety of God’s gift. Most grace people assume that refuting the direct route closes the door on faith as God’s gift. But that is not so. Three interpretive options that allow the faith-as-God’s-gift theory have already appeared in the literature. These views take kai touto (“and this/that” in Eph 2:8) in one of three ways. The first is that this refers to faith as God’s gift. The second is that this refers to faith as one of God’s three gifts. The third is that the phrase and this is used adverbially and introduces faith as God’s gift.
This article argues against all three views, closing the door on the notion that faith is even a tiny part of God’s gift in Eph 2:8. Finally, the correct alternative will be given. This approach stays true to this passage’s actual subject: eternal salvation is by grace.
II. VIEW 1: TOUTO (“THIS”) REFERS TO FAITH AS GOD’S GIFT
Despite being popular among Calvinists, this view faces huge hurdles. First, it disrupts the passage’s flow with a parenthesis. Second, it abandons Paul’s normal usage of neuter singular forms of the demonstrative pronoun houtos (“this”).
A. Distortion #1: Being Made Alive Precedes Faith
Few realize that treating faith as God’s gift makes part of Eph 2:8 parenthetic. James Candlish admitted this in 1895:
…the majority of modern interpreters, including Calvin,2 refer it [“this is not of yourselves”] to salvation. The chief reason for this latter opinion is that the following clause (ver. 9), “not of works,” can hardly be connected with faith, but must refer to salvation. But it is quite in Paul’s style to interrupt the direct connection of his thoughts by a parenthetic clause such as this, so that the construction would be: “by grace ye have been saved through faith… not of works”; while the words, “and that not of yourselves, God’s is the gift,” come in as a parenthesis [explaining the source of faith].3
Treating faith as God’s gift requires a parenthetic interruption.4 Abraham Kuyper embraced this idea. He explicitly inserts parentheses:
For then it reads: “You are saved by mere grace, by means of faith. (Not as tho[ugh] by this means of faith the grace of your salvation would be partly not of grace: no indeed not, for even that faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.) And, therefore, saved through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are His workmanship.”
But then this creates a parenthesis, which is perfectly true; but even this is truly Pauline (emphasis in original).5
Like Kuyper, Candlish claimed to expect a parenthesis here: “…it is quite in Paul’s style to interrupt the direct connection of his thoughts by a parenthetic clause such as this.” Though Paul is not averse to inserting parentheses, Candlish did not know that the hallmark of parentheses is that they lack “proper syntactical connection,” as A. T. Robertson’s introduction to that topic contends: “Such a clause, inserted in the midst of the sentence without proper syntactical connection, is quite common in the N. T.”6
Ephesians 2:5f illustrates Robertson’s point that parenthetic portions are “without proper syntactical connection.” Specifically,
…He [God] made alive together with Christ [third person main verb] (by grace you have been saved)7 [parenthetic second person verb] and He raised together and seated together… [third person main verbs]
The phrase “By grace you have been saved” in 2:5 is parenthetic because the second person verb is “without proper syntactical connection.” Parentheses belong in 2:5f because part of the sentence lacks proper syntactical connection. However, that does not apply in 2:8. Even Candlish admits that the phrase “and that not of yourselves” has a proper syntactical connection: “Whether the following clause, ‘and that not of yourselves,’ refers to faith, or to ‘ye have been saved,’ is a doubtful question; for both interpretations are grammatically possible…” [emphasis added].8
Candlish fractures Paul’s thought here with a theologically motivated parenthesis. Apparently, he embraced the Calvinistic supposition that “dead” (Eph 2:1 and 5) denotes inability. However, Paul’s grammar precludes such a definition for dead: People are saved (made alive) through faith. Timothy Nichols argues persuasively in that:
In their own chosen terminology, what each commentator [Lincoln, Wood, Alford, Lenski, Eadie, Anders, Bruce, Martin, Hoehner, Beare and Wedel, Simpson, Abbott, Hodge, and Robertson] affirms is this: faith is the instrumental cause of salvation, but grace is the principle cause [emphasis in original].9
Instrumental cause must precede (by at least a split second) the action that is effected. A simple, but profound implication is that instrumental means must precede (even by a millisecond) the action for which it is a means. An illustration may help:
The car started through Mr. Smith’s turning the key. (Key turns, then car starts.)
Ephesians were made alive (saved) through faith. (Faith first, then one is made alive.)
Both underlined phrases preceded the italicized ones.10
The Calvinist model is akin to the car starting before one turns the key. It reverses the sequence which Paul’s grammar requires. That is not this view’s only distortion.
B. Distortion #2: Touto (This) Refers to Pistis (Faith)
New Testament statistics strongly deny that touto refers to faith. Viewing faith as God’s gift here also runs afoul of Paul’s usage of neuter singular forms of the demonstrative houtos. Paul simply does not use neuter forms of houtos to refer to feminine nouns, such as pistis (faith).11 In the Majority Text, Paul uses 139 neuter singulars of the word houtos, usually translated as this. One hundred of those refer to multiple-word conceptual units:
13 uses referring to a paragraph (a neuter referent)
20 to a sentence (a neuter referent)
66 to a clause (a neuter referent)
+ 1 to a phrase (a neuter referent)
100 uses referring to multiple-word conceptual units
He uses neuter singulars thirty-nine (39) times to refer to or modify neuter words.
9 uses referring to a neuter relative pronoun
5 uses referring to another neuter word
+ 25 uses as an attributive adjective modifying a neuter word
39 uses referring to or modifying a neuter word
The main take-away is that Paul simply does not refer to masculine or feminine nouns via neuter forms of houtos.
Some may find comparing the nominative singular forms of houtos with a masculine, a feminine, and a neuter noun helpful:
Masculine: houtos: houtos ho anthrōpos = this man (anthrōpos is masculine)
Feminine: hautē: hautē hē pistis = this faith (pistis is feminine)
Neuter: touto: touto to arnion = this lamb (arnion is neuter)
These forms are quite distinct. Only hautē would point to a feminine antecedent. In Eph 2:8, Paul uses touto. The standard Calvinist approach has an insurmountable hurdle.
1. Per Raphael Kühner, gender-mismatch of referents is infrequent.
Some modern writers claim that the neuter of houtos frequently refers to masculine or feminine nouns. Detective work is needed, because those claims come from secondary and/or unattributed secondary sources.
John MacArthur does not credit the originator of the notion that the neuter pronoun might refer to faith (pistis, a feminine Greek noun):
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith (pistis) is feminine, while that (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing [the argument ultimately traces back to Raphael Kühner].12
Robert Countess mentions Abraham Kuyper and his source, Raphael Kühner:
…there is ample precedent in Greek syntax for viewing pistis [faith], touto [this] as is herein being done. In Abraham Kuyper’s The Work of the Holy Spirit reference is made to Kü[h]ner’s Ausführliche Grammatik der Griech. Sprache (II, 1, p. 54).
Kuyper’s translation runs thus:
A neutral demonstrative pronoun is frequently used to refer to a preceding masculine or feminine noun, when the meaning expressed by this word is taken in a general sense [etc] (Kuyper, p. 412).13
Kuyper’s rendering (parroted by Countess and echoed by MacArthur) might give the false impression that neuter demonstrative pronouns frequently have masculine or feminine antecedents. In giving that impression, Kuyper missed the context for Kühner’s assertion about demonstratives with masculine or feminine antecedents. The original context deals with exceptions, not normal practice. It would be helpful to summarize sections from Jelf’s translation of Kühner,14 which is more accessible to this journal’s readers than Kühner’s German.
In Jelf, §377 (p. 36; § = section) starts with a general rule: “… the predicate…agrees with its subject in gender, number, and case…” Several of his following sections (§378: pp. 36f; §379: pp. 37f; §380: pp. 38f; §381: pp. 39-41; §382: p. 41; etc.) have as their introduction this statement (p. 36): “…it will be convenient not to confine ourselves to the predicative exceptions, but to consider at the same time all cases of this sort which spring from the same principle” [emphasis mine].
Note that §381 (= Kühner §361, from which Kuyper translated) deals with various exceptions. Kühner did not mean that writers regularly used neuter demonstratives with masculine or feminine antecedents. Rather, it is a rare exception. Kühner claimed that this rare exception typically involved conceptual masculine/feminine nouns.
An illustration may clarify. Consider the following statement:
Frequently, lottery grand-prize winners soon end up penniless.
The question that needs to be asked is thus: what frequently happens?
- Is it that a high percentage of lottery-ticket buyers are grand-prize winners?
- Is it that a large proportion of the small number of winners soon goes broke?
Number 2 is correct. Millions buy tickets, but an infinitesimally small percentage of buyers win big. A tiny minority of that little number successfully hang onto their wealth.
Similarly, Kuyper’s translation of Kühner misleadingly starts with, “A neutral demonstrative pronoun is frequently used to refer to a preceding masculine or feminine noun…” It might sound as though Kühner discusses a common feature (neuter demonstratives with masculine or feminine antecedents). Not at all. It is rare, even in classical Greek.15 Kühner’s actual point is that a certain feature tends to be present when this exceptional pattern occurs: the noun in question is abstract. The next section will show it to be even rarer than Kühner thought.
William Jelf wrote a Greek grammar that was largely (but not totally) a translation of Kühner. He translates Kühner’s statement, “Besonders häufig steht das Neutrum eines demonstrativen Pronomens in Beziehung auf ein männliches oder weibliches Substantiv, indem der Begriff desselben ganz allgemein als blosses Ding oder Wesen oder auch als ein ganzer Gedanke aufgefasst wird” as: “The neuter demonstrative also is joined with a masculine or feminine substantive when this expresses a general notion, as is most frequently the case in abstract substantives.”16
Jelf’s translation clarifies that gender mismatch is uncommon. Although Kühner’s sentence starts with “Besonders häufig” (“most frequently”), his point was not that masculine/feminine antecedents for neuter demonstratives are common. Rather, the common denominator for this exception is that an abstract noun is present.
2. Gender-Mismatch of referents is even rarer than Raphael Kühner thought.
The latest edition of Jelf’s translation cites Kühner’s first edition (1834-35). Grammarians had not yet recognized Koinē Greek (330 BC–AD 330) as a distinct stage of the Greek language. Kühner focused on the classical (pre-330 BC) period, not upon the Koinē of the NT. Classical usage has minimal relevance for Paul. Most Pauline referents for neuter singular uses of houtos are multi-word conceptual ones. The rest are to neuter nouns.17 He simply does not give evidence of the type of gender-mismatching that many Calvinists foist upon Eph 2:8.
In this regard, Dan Wallace critiques Countess (whose list derives from Kühner) in two ways: (1) the examples are not from the NT, and (2) Countess (and Kühner) seem unaware of the possibility of a conceptual (multi-word) antecedent (Paul’s most frequent usage of the neuter singular):
He [Countess] lists three examples from Attic Greek, arguing that such a phenomenon occurs frequently in Greek literature (120). His approach has weaknesses, for not only does he cite no NT examples, but two of his classical illustrations are better seen as referring to a concept than to a noun. Further, the usage is not at all frequent and in every instance requires explanation.18
The appendix shows that the multi-word conceptual antecedent is Paul’s most frequent category. He simply does not refer to masculine or feminine antecedents via neuter demonstratives.
C. Summary of the Argument Against Faith as God’s Gift
Those taking faith as God’s gift must treat part of the passage as parenthetic, sometimes admitting that Paul finishes by saying that by-grace salvation is not of works. That is, no reason exists for saying that faith is not of works. The only justification for a parenthesis is to rescue Calvinism. The arguments are not text-based.
Paul (in his 139 uses) does not refer to masculine or feminine nouns via neuter singular demonstrative pronouns. Various Calvinists have twisted Kühner’s assertion to claim that gender criss-crossing of demonstrative pronoun referents is frequent. Not only is it not frequent in Paul, but none of his neuter singulars of houtos do so.
III. FAITH AS ONE OF THREE GIFTS
This article has argued for a conceptual multi-word referent for touto in Eph 2:8. Markus Barth derives three distinct gifts from Eph 2:8a (For by grace you have been saved through faith). At first glance, his view might seem to take 2:8a as a conceptual referent. That is not the case. Barth ultimately argues for three gifts of God here.
The neuter pronoun ‘this’ may refer to one of three things: the [1] ‘grace,’ the verb [2] ‘saved,’ the noun [3] ‘faith.’ It is Augustine’s merit to have pointed out that the gratia gratis data [“freely given grace”] includes the gift of [3] ‘faith’ to man…19 Still, the pronoun ‘this’ in Eph 2:8 need not have the restricted20 (anti-Pelagian) meaning [e.g., word #3, faith]. It may also refer to the eternal election by grace and the ‘outpouring’ of [1] grace mentioned in 1:4-8, and to the preaching of the ‘true word, the message that [2] saves’ (1:13) [underlining mine].21
Barth appropriates Augustine’s view that faith here is a gift of God. Then, in the underlined words, he claims that the gift extends beyond faith. He then proceeds to add grace and salvation as gifts. He imagines three gifts here.
This is not a conceptual referent. Barth thinks Paul was speaking of three gifts. But if Paul meant that, the text should have a feminine plural demonstrative hautai. Instead, it reads touto.
IV. AN ADVERBIAL NON-ANTECEDENT
Some try to cut the Gordian knot. Wallace cites Blass-Debrunner-Funk and BDAG to suggest that there might be no antecedent.22 Each suggests the translation of kai touto as “and especially.” In a course paper,23 Nichols raised several objections to Wallace’s proposal:
…[1] the adverbial use of kai touto would be rare, requiring considerable validation that it is, in fact, adverbial here. Furthermore, Wallace’s case for this category is shaky at best. [2] Three of his four examples [Rom 13:11; 1 Cor 6:6, 8—the last of which differs in the Majority Text] have a clear conceptual referent, and [3] the last one [3 John 5] (problematic, but very possibly adverbial) is outside of Paul. [4] In fact, every neuter use of houtos in Paul has a referent (usually conceptual) in the context. Wallace appeals to a category of usage for touto which Paul simply does not evidence.24
Blass-Debrunner, BDAG, and Wallace may like a no-antecedent view, but they all fail to validate it.25 This leaves only the multi-word referent options.
V. MULTI-WORD CONCEPTUAL ANTECEDENT
A contextual conceptual referent exists in Eph 2:8a. Is through faith part of touto’s referent? Two options exist:
- By grace you have been saved through faith: by grace through faith salvation.
- By grace you have been saved: by grace salvation.
A. The by-Grace-through-Faith Kind of Salvation
Harold Hoehner says, “…touto refers back to 2:4-8a and more specifically 2:8a, the concept of salvation by grace through faith.”26 This view sees a conceptual reference to an entire clause. Thus, it accounts for touto being both singular and neuter.
B. The by Grace Kind of Salvation
Timothy Nichols argues that Paul, through repetition, identifies the central topic of Eph 2:8:
Paul’s own summary of his main thought in 2:1-7 is chariti este sesōsmenoi (by grace you are saved) [2:5]. Paul reintroduces this clause at the beginning of 2:8 as his continuing topic of discussion to add the new information that by-grace salvation occurs dia tēs pisteōs (through faith). The continuing topic of discussion, then is chariti este sesōsmenoi [by grace you are saved], i.e., by-grace salvation.27
Ephesians 2:8 contains the one and only use of the word pistis (“faith”) in the entire paragraph (2:1-10). This reinforces the point that Paul’s topic is by-grace salvation.
VI. IS “THROUGH FAITH” PART OF THE REFERENT OF TOUTO?
Paul’s continuing topic is by-grace salvation. Note the restatements of this topic in context:
Dead people being made alive with Christ… (2:5)
By grace you are saved (2:5)
By grace you are saved (2:8)
Making people alive by grace is the type of salvation that both 2:5 and 8 discuss. God graciously made formerly dead people (with nothing good about them) alive. That is the over-riding topic. Paul’s one-time clarification that by-grace salvation happens through faith does not change the topic. It is still the by-grace salvation. The referent for touto (“this”) in Eph 2:8 should be by-grace salvation, not by-grace-through-faith salvation.
A parable may help: Once upon a time, someone gave Jack a computer mouse. Its heavy, clear-plastic blister-packaging defied being opened with bare hands, so he used a pair of scissors. Then Jack connected the mouse to his computer and began using it.
What was the gift? The mouse. What was the role of the scissors? It was the instrument by which Jack avails himself of the gift—crucially, not part of the gift itself. From where did the scissors come? The story does not say. It focuses on the mouse as a gift. Likewise, faith is the instrument by which one accesses the gift of the by-grace-kind-of-salvation (cf. John 4:10-14; Acts 10:45; 11:17; Rom 6:23; Heb 6:4; Jas 1:17). The passage does not say from whence faith comes. Some theological systems are tempted to insert their supposition that God gives the faith, but that is not exegesis. The text is silent on that issue.
VII. CONCLUSION
Allowing faith to be even part of the gift of God in Eph 2:8 is like letting a camel put its nose into a tent. Before long, the whole camel is inside. Paul’s grammar does not allow that the gift of God is faith (standard Reformed view). Neither does it permit saying that faith is one of God’s three gifts, as Markus Barth argues. The no-antecedent adverbial “and especially” model of BDAG, BDF, and Wallace is a sneaky, but untenable, way to make faith God’s gift. Nor should anyone say that the “by-grace-through-faith kind of salvation” is the gift. Paul wants believers to know that the “by grace kind of salvation” is God’s gift. We should not concede that faith is even the tiniest part of God’s gift in Eph 2:8-9, because Paul does not say that.
VIII. APPENDIX
This appendix does not classify all uses of houtos in the NT. It classifies Paul’s uses of neuter singulars (whether they are demonstrative pronouns or demonstrative adjectives). Ephesians 2:8 is an example of a neuter-singular demonstrative pronoun that refers to a clause, Paul’s most common usage (66 times).
The statistics are for the Majority Text, but bracketed references are from Nestle-Aland. Underlined references indicate when Nestle-Aland lacks a neuter singular form of houtos.
1. 114 Uses as a Demonstrative Pronoun
A. 100 References to Multiple-Word Conceptual-Units
i. Thirteen (13) refer to a paragraph: Rom 1:26; 4:16; 5:12; 13:11; 1 Cor 11:17; Eph 1:15; 3:1, 14; Phil 1:19; Col 1:9; 2:4; 1 Th 2:13; 3:7.
ii. Twenty (20) refer to a sentence: Rom 13:6; 15:9, 28; 1 Cor 4:17; 7:6; 9:23; 11:10, 22, 30; 2 Cor 4:1; 7:13; 13:10; Eph 5:5, 17, 31; 6:13; Phil 1:25; 1 Th 3:5; 2 Th 2:11; 1 Tim 2:3.
iii. Sixty-six (66) refer to a clause: Rom 1:12; 2:3; 6:6; 7:18; 9:8; 10:6, 7, 8; 12:20; 14:9, 13; 1 Cor 1:12; 4:4; 5:3; 6:6; 7:26, 29, 35, 37; 9:17; 11:24b, 25b; 12:15, 16; 15:50; 2 Cor 1:17; 2:1, 9; 5:14; 8:10ab, 20; 9:6; 10:7, 11; 12:8; Gal 3:2, 17; Eph 2:8; 4:17; 6:1; Phil 1:7, 9, 18, 22, 28; 3:15ab; Col 3:20; 1 Th 3:3; 4:3, 15; 5:18; 2 Th 3:10; 1 Tim 1:9, 16; 4:10, 16; 5:4; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:10; 3:1; Tit 1:5; Phlm 12 [verse 11 in N-A], 15, 18. [N-A adds Rom 14:18; 1 Co 6:8].
iv. One (1) refers to a phrase: 2 Cor 13:9.
B. Fourteen (14) References to a Neuter Word
i. Nine (9) refer to a neuter relative pronoun: Rom 7:15ab, 16, 19, 20; 11:7; 1 Cor 7:24; Gal 6:7; Phil 2:5.
ii. Five (5) refer to a neuter word: 1 Cor 10:28 (to pōloumenon = something sold in v 25); 11:24a (mou to sōma = My body); 2 Cor 5:2 (skēnous = tent in v 1); Eph 6:8 (agathon = good).
2. Twenty-Five (25) Neuter Uses as a Demonstrative Adjective Modifying a Neuter Word
Rom 7:24; 9:17; 11:25; 13:6; 1 Cor 5:2; 11:25, 26; 15:53ab, 54ab; 2 Cor 2:3; 3:10; 5:5; 7:11; 9:3; 13:1; Gal 2:10; Eph 5:32; 6:12, 18, 22; Phil 1:6; Col 1:27; 4:8. [N-A adds 2 Cor 12:14.]
____________________
1 John F. MacArthur, Ephesians, MacArthur NTC (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986), 60f. MacArthur goes on to invoke the Kühner-Kuyper-Countess argument. This article will show that this weak argument proves nothing.
2 Notably, John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. W. Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1864), 227, treats salvation, not faith, as God’s gift in 2:8. Calvin states, “When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ.” On this, Calvin is far closer to the truth than most Calvinists.
3 James S. Candlish, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 58. The ellipsis within his citation of Eph 2:8-9 originated with him.
4 He invented a parenthesis to prevent the text from saying that salvation results from works, since it hardly makes sense (under any view) that faith results from works. Actually, the text does not need a parenthesis in the first place, because God’s gift is not faith.
5 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. H. DeVries (New York and London, 1900), 2:414.
6 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923; reprint, Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 433.
7 Some translations (e.g., NET, NIV, NJB, NRS) use em-dashes (“—”) here to denote the parenthesis.
8 Candlish, Ephesians, 58.
9 Timothy R. Nichols, Dead Man’s Faith: Spiritual Death, Faith, and Regeneration in Ephesians 2:1-10 (Headwaters Christian Resources, 2016), 67. In footnote 78 on the same page, Nichols includes the references for each listed commentator affirming that faith is the instrumental cause, and grace is the principle cause. The book by Nichols derives from his 2004 Th.M. thesis by the same title at Chafer Seminary, for which the present writer was the advisor.
10 How did Paul describe the condition of the Ephesians when they were unbelievers? They were spiritually dead. The following is the sequence:
- They were spiritually dead unbelievers.
- They believed the message of life.
- A millisecond after believing, they were made alive spiritually.
Alert readers will note that if people believe while spiritually dead, Paul could not define “dead” under the rubric of total inability. That said, Eph 4:17-18 defines “dead” as separated from the life that God gives, not an inability to believe: Ephesian Gentiles are not to walk in futility of mind, as other Gentiles do (e.g., unbelieving Gentiles (4:17)). Other Gentiles walk in futility of mind, because their understanding is darkened (4:18a). The understanding of other Gentiles is darkened, because they are alienated from the life of God (4:18b).
11 See this article’s appendix.
12 MacArthur, Ephesians, 61.
13 Robert H. Countess, “Thank God for the Genitive,” JETS 12 (Spring 1969): 120. See Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. H. DeVries (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), 2:412. Kuyper cited the 1870 edition of Kühner. I only have access to the third edition: Raphael Kühner with Bernhard Gerth, Satzlehre [Syntax], vol. 1.2 of Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, 3rd ed. (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1898), 60 (§361).
14 William Edward Jelf, Syntax, vol. 2 of A Grammar of the Greek Language: Chiefly from the German of Raphael Kühner, 3rd ed. (Oxford and London: Henry and Parker, 1861).
15 Kühner, Satzlehre, §361, only adduced a few examples; Kuyper, Spirit, 2:412, listed a few more. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 334, n. 51, says, “the usage is not at all frequent.” He notes that some examples cited by Countess have conceptual multi-word antecedents. Kühner, Kuyper, and Countess seem not to have considered the possibility of multi-word conceptual antecedents.
16 Jelf, Grammar, 2:40 (§381).
17 See the appendix.
18 Wallace, Grammar, 334, n. 51.
19 Augustine detailed his views in De Dono Perseverantiae (On the Gift of Perseverance), which he wrote in 428 or 429, shortly before his death in 430.
20 Restricted refers here to following Augustine’s view, that God’s gift is confined to faith. Barth seems to view faith as one aspect of the gift.
21 Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3, AB, vol. 34, W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman, gen. eds. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 225.
22 Wallace, Grammar, 335, n. 54, cites BDF, 151 (§290.5), BAGD, s.v. houtos 1.b.g. (The reference in BDAG is the same as in the earlier edition Wallace cited).
23 Ann Marshall and Timothy R. Nichols, “The Neuter Uses of Houtos in Paul,” (paper submitted for 305 Advanced Greek Grammar, Chafer Theological Seminary, Fall 2000).
24 Nichols, Dead Man’s Faith, 84.
25 Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, ICC, J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, gen eds. (London and New York: Clark, 1998), 226, argues for conceptual referents for 1 Cor 6:6 and 6:8 (in the critical text NA; Majority Text has a different reading).
26 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 343.
27 Nichols, Dead Man’s Faith, 87f.
